Jump to content
The Education Forum

PrayerPerson ???


Recommended Posts

Mr. Frazier did not change his story "a bit". He changed it to the extent that he did not speak the truth under oath by saying he did not see Lee Oswald in the Depository on Friday except couple times in the morning. Many years later he started to claim he did see him minutes after the shooting when Lee was walking south on Houston street to Elm street. In his recent autobiography, he came with a story that he had seen an unknown man stashing a rifle into a car in front of the Depository building within minutes of assassination. Would this information not be relevant to the Warren Commission or law inforcement officers? He told nothing to anyone. Did he speak right there with Police about a man with a rifle in front of the Depository couple of minutes after the shooting, the APB could have gone in direction of this man. These are not human errors, these are big memory lapses in critical parts of the case.

I agree with Mark that Mr Frazier cannot recall seeing Lee Oswald around the time of assassination. The reason is the postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) he very likely developed feeling extreme danger to himself and his sister. It was interesting to listen to Mr Frazier recent interviews that followed his book. He said he experienced severe discomfort while writing, and made long (months) breaks before resuming his writing. People differ in their chances to develop postraumatic stress disorder and those being subject to abuse and hardship in early childhood having an increased risk. Mr Frazier described in detail what abuse he received from the hands of his stepfarther when he was a child. The symptoms of PTSD are memory lapses, attentional deficits, avoiding conversations on the stressful event,  experiencing physiological arousal when talking about stress-related events, and other symptoms.

If all was right with Mr Frazier's mental state, Mr. Frazier would say: "The lady who works in one of the publishing offices, her name was Sarah, stood to the left of me, and the person XY (or somebody whom I did not know) stood at the western wall just in front of me." Instead, Mr Frazier only admitted seeing Sarah Stanton to his left and blinked the person to his right completely. 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

47 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

And what, praytell, would be the logical reason for Frazier to be told to lie about Oswald on the steps but not about the package? The package was such a massive part of the Warren Comission cover-up and received so much attention that I fail to see how it could possibly fall through the cracks. 

No, Miles, the alleged package and its contents and size is *not* a massive part of the coverup.  Particularly in the context of the fact they couldn't place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting (because he wasn't) or prove he fired a rifle at that time, any rifle (because he most likely didn't).   Without that what does it matter what was in the package he allegedly brought that morning?  The WC did not claim he brought the rifle that morning for some else to use.

Most importantly, any discussion of the package pales in comparison to the question of whether Oswald was on the front steps during or shortly after the shooting, such that Darnell could have captured him on film.  You have said you can't consider that question seriously because Frazier has not identified Oswald in Darnell but strongly debunked the package story the WC claimed.  He must have been honest on both accounts, you say.

Do you know what happened to Frazier on the day of the murder?  The cops knew of his closeness to Oswald and quickly targeted him as important to the story they were concocting.  They grabbed him, sat him down, and threatened to rough him up or worse.  The told him they that Oswald had murdered Kennedy and he was in custody.  They were going to charge Frazier, they said, with being an accessory to murder.  He could  kiss the rest of his life goodbye.

Frazier was 19 at the time with relatives in the area.  He might not have known right away how ruthless these people were, but it couldn't have escaped him for long.  His decision about the lynchpin of the case--where was Oswald during the shooting--was easy.  Of course he would go along.  In later years he could nibble around the edges of the case, even saying some contrary things, especially when he was ready to sell a book.  He has even said  he didn't think Oswald did it.  

If Oswald was on the steps he wasn't there long.  Ochus Campbell initially said he went back into the building quickly after realized there were shots and saw Oswald on the first floor.  (Which, like so much in the case, he later changed).  I don't know if Frazier saw him, tho I think it likely.  I don't  where to place Frazier's statements that he doesn't know who was next to him on an honesty scale.  Given all that has happened I also don't think, if Frazier did see Oswald, there's much chance he would say so now. 

In any case, your judgement about Frazier's honesty re the package should not inhibit you from taking the possibilities of Prayerman seriously.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Documents can be altered. That sort of thing happens in cover-ups.

Do you believe there was no cover-up Pat?

 

I believe I have proved there was a cover-up. But it wasn't done by changing witness statements. This makes little sense, seeing as the vast majority of early critics of the Warren Report were driven to become so because of...the witness statements...that largely contradicted the official "story". Frazier is a classic example. Thousands and perhaps even millions of people came to doubt the Warren Report when they realized he'd sworn from the get-go that the bag was too small to hold Oswald's rifle, and that he'd passed a lie detector test when denying the bag carried from the TSBD was the bag he saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. 

I suspect a lot of these early critics would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what has become of the research community, where people have long given up using the official record to prove the official conclusions are incorrect, and have instead taken to claiming that whatever they don't want to believe is fake, and was dummied up by the evil FBI, or evil CIA, etc...

I stopped believing the FBI was the boogey-man a long time ago. Perhaps it's because I worked at a company that collapsed in a mound of criminality, and ended up having numerous meetings with FBI investigators. 

The takeaway is this... They... just...aren't...that...smart...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect a lot of these early critics would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what has become of the research community, where people have long given up using the official record to prove the official conclusions are incorrect, and have instead taken to claiming that whatever they don't want to believe is fake, and was dummied up by the evil FBI, or evil CIA, etc...

 

The official record should NOT be used in cases where it is contradicted by first-day statements, films, later-released documents, or other evidence.

Your mischaracterization of researchers who do in-depth research because of those contradictions, and thereby discover elements of the cover-up, is shameful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I stopped believing the FBI was the boogey-man a long time ago. Perhaps it's because I worked at a company that collapsed in a mound of criminality, and ended up having numerous meetings with FBI investigators.

 

If it wasn't the FBI who did the cover-up, then who did?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If it wasn't the FBI who did the cover-up, then who did?

 

Most of the "cover-up" per se was done by the WC's counsel, who pre-screened witnesses and avoided asking certain questions on the record. They also worked with the doctors to create misleading illustrations demonstrating the President's wounds. They then spun the filtered evidence to fit a pre-determined outcome. This wasn't done in a vacuum, moreover. This was as ordered by Warren, and, above him, Johnson. 

That the witness statements, photographic evidence, and medical evidence, when taken in total, suggest more than one shooter, of course, strongly suggests it is authentic. 

I mean, why fake stuff when you can just lie about it? 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The official record should NOT be used in cases where it is contradicted by first-day statements, films, later-released documents, or other evidence.

Your mischaracterization of researchers who do in-depth research because of those contradictions, and thereby discover elements of the cover-up, is shameful.

 

The "first-day statements, films, later-released documents, and other evidence" is the official record. The official conclusions in this case do not follow from the official record. That is what got Weisberg and Garrison, among others, to devote so much of their lives conducting further research. It wasn't that they had a hunch everything was fake. it's that they thought the witness statements and other evidence suggested a different scenario than that proposed by the WC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If it wasn't the FBI who did the cover-up, then who did?

Most of the "cover-up" per se was done by the WC's counsel, ...

I mean, why fake stuff when you can just lie about it?

 

Well there's your mistake right there Pat. You assume that there was nothing to cover up other than what the WC counsel did.

Basically, you fell for the FBI and CIA cover-ups. (Probably SS cover-up too.) That's why you have to ignore the things covered up by them but later revealed by researchers. Like the Hosty interrogation note stating that Oswald said he was outside watching the P. Parade. A fact that was determined to be the case beforehand by Bart's group and also myself interdependently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The "first-day statements, films, later-released documents, and other evidence" is the official record.

 

I've seen FBI documents that contradict first-day statements, and contradict other FBI documents. First-day statements seem to be largely trustworthy. Films came later and aren't all trustworthy. Later released documents reveal that the FBI fabricated and altered things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well there's your mistake right there Pat. You assume that there was nothing to cover up other than what the WC counsel did.

Basically, you fell for the FBI and CIA cover-ups. (Probably SS cover-up too.) That's why you have to ignore the things covered up by them but later revealed by researchers. Like the Hosty interrogation note stating that Oswald said he was outside watching the P. Parade. A fact that was determined to be the case beforehand by Bart's group and also myself interdependently.

 

Your desperation is showing. Why do you keep saying the Hosty notes written after his interview with Oswald said something it did not say? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...